Header Right

Oregon Tax on Bicycles May Signal New Trend

Editor’s Note: RBR contributor Stan Purdum (don’t miss Stan’s article “Days of Adventure” in today’s issue) forwarded a link to an article on the League of American Bicyclists website that should be of interest to all of us. It details Oregon’s recently passed tax on new bicycles. Beyond that, and noting another example or two of jurisdictions that tax or otherwise require a paid registration for bikes, the article delves into a long explanation of why we should beware “user fees” – especially as means to pay for cycling infrastructure.

Moreover, it raises the very real possibility that other, less friendly cycling states and localities will use the Oregon law as easy justification to enact their own (potentially onerous, or even outright ridiculous) taxes or user fees on bikes and cyclists.

The LAB article was written by Ken McLeod, the League’s legal expert on advocacy issues. Because it is so detailed and thorough, I’ll just give you a brief taste of Ken’s own words, along with a link to the full article.

“Earlier this month the Oregon Legislature passed a transportation bill that will dedicate $1.3 billion to biking, walking, and transit over the next 10 years out of a total of $5.3 billion. The bill includes $125 million for Safe Routes to School investments. Notably, this exceeds 2% of the transportation package, somewhat fulfilling a key feedback point from our 2015 Bicycle Friendly State report card. Unfortunately, this great win for bicycling is also paired with a disappointing tax on new bicycles. New adult bicycles that cost more than $200 will be subject to a $15 flat fee.

“Oregon’s bicycle tax is not particularly surprising – it has been a part of their transportation funding debate for years and was always part of this most recent funding legislation in Oregon. The Street Trust, formerly the Bicycle Transportation Alliance and currently the largest active transportation advocacy organization in Oregon, has been fighting against various forms of bicycle tax proposals for years. In this most recent legislation their dedicated lobbyists became convinced that there was no positive way forward without working with a package that included a bike tax.

“I hope that Oregon’s bicycle tax isn’t a sign of a reversal of Oregon’s embrace of bicycling or a precursor to similar taxes without similar associated investments. It is possible that Oregon’s tax will lead to more investments in making streets safe for bicyclists and be successful by changing the conversation that starts when someone says bicyclists “don’t pay for roads.” Perhaps states that have not sought to make significant investments in bicycling before will emulate the tax and make investments in bicycling they could never justify before. Time will tell whether this tax shows the persistence of an antagonistic “user fee” theory of transportation funding or is a prologue to more inclusive transportation funding policy and decision-making where outcomes, not funding sources, are what matters.”

Reader Interactions

Comments

Kind of funny to think that a liberal state like Oregon would implement a tax like this, especially where cycling is popular, but that is besides the point. The small business owner – the bike shop owner – is the one who is really hurt here. Expect an uptick in the sale of used bikes, internet sales or out of state purchases.

I live and work in Portland, riding 20 miles a day, round trip, in ALL weather. Yes I have 29’er I put studs on for snow. While I’m not a fan of more/higher fees I am also keenly aware of all the bicycle specific infrastructure that I regularly take advantage of as well as the state wide efforts to improve and promote cycling.

Sure the higher fees will be a pain, but it’s less than a pair of inner tubes. It will be harder for an independent dealer to absorb the increased cost of a sale but the possible higher interest in used bikes could actually play to their strengths. My LBS can’t make a living selling sub $150 bike anyway, I asked.

If we are going to convince more people to get out of thier cars we have to make it easier for them. Something like more than 90% of trips of less than 1.5 miles in our city are made by motor vehicle. (Don’t quote me on the actual number).

I’m not a rabid “bike only” rider, my personal vehicle is a ’78 Jeep Grand Wagoneer with an AMC 401 (!!!). I will gladly pay my “fair share” for the roads I ride, as long as I receive good value for that investment.

I wouldn’t mind a mere $15 at the point of sale if the states would actually use it to build more cycling lanes, keep existing ones clean, add more driver/cyclist laws awareness, and better enforcement of laws and publicly known punishments for offenders.

A one-time $15 tax on new bike over $200 is not excessive and if truly applied to cycling infrastructure is justified. That’s something like two Happy Meals or three-four nice Starbucks (oh, Dutch Brothers in Oregon). I don’t think cyclists should complain too much if they use cycling paths and other tax-supported features. The test will be whether or not there is tax creep and if funds will actually go directly to cycling infrastructure

I have three cars on the road; I pay plenty of income tax and sales taxes; not to mention property taxes. Were is the justification for paying more taxes. I am already paying taxes specifically for roads through gas taxes and taxes on the cars. I am already paying taxes for infrastructure through the other taxes. I am not opposed to paying for services, but there is already a tax on everything I buy from a bike shop. What is the justification for taking more? There should not be an extra tax on shoes to pay for side walks, but using this logic there should be. Just as sidewalks are an automatic part of the infrastructure where appropriate, alternative transportation needs to be accounted for where appropriate and be part of the plan, and just like sidewalks, not something which needs to be paid for extra. Bike riders may not represent a large number of the population but the percentage of a population who actually use any one part of a sidewalk system is also very small.

“Use” taxes [as well as other non-income taxes] are going up because it seems politicians cant get elected if they don’t pledge to lower taxes [usually meaning income taxes]. These other taxes are snuck in and usually not noticed. Notice also that usually the “Use” taxes are never graduated by income, and thus hurt the low income family much more than the higher income families. [In addition, in most states the “Use” taxes are just added in to the general fund.